Hi Sheikh, thanks for the longest and most thoughtful response yet posted by you or your friends.
Dr. A Sheikh said:
Pakistani homeopath: I can explain what homeopathy is.
Forum: Please do.
Pakistani homeopath: You have no basic knowledge to understand it, you must get admission in some school then you will be able to understand what is homeopathy?
Forum: No, we are much qualified you can explain to us.
As Ashles pointed out, you are accurate up to this point.
Pakistani homeopath: Ok, Those who want to understand it, disclose your qualification and identity so that we could verify your real name qualification and address, so that we could teach you according to your standard of education
Forum: No we cannot disclose, you just assume that we are ph.d in chemistry
This is an internet forum, not a university faculty. Many of us here are highly qualified in relevant fields (I am not, but am interested to hear your explanation; you have said nothing so far beyond my understanding, and when you do, I will refrain from comment) - if you don't believe people here are following your argument, then say so. There has been no indication so far that anybody has failed to understand what has been said.
Pakistani homeopath: Ok, how the proving symptoms of arsenic album poison were produced when it was exposed to human body?
Forum: You can't ask the question to us? we are much qualified, just explain how does homeopathy work?
Pakistani homeopath: Ok, when arsenic album was exposed to human body, few symptoms were produced, these symptoms were noted by the observer, when a healthy individual reported the same set of symptoms, the arsenic album in minute quantity was prescribed, after administration the patient got recover from his actual set of symptoms.
Forum: No, No, No, this is fraud, this is fraud, homeopaths has left the forum, they ran away, they are non-sense they cannot explain the pharmacological action of arsenic album in the body.... shame,,,,,,
Starting to deviate wildly from my recollection of the conversation up to this point, but given this is your perspective, let me comment: here you seem to be saying that you stated that there is an observed symptomatic effect from administration of arsenic album; you say "minute quantity" - do you mean "homeopathic quantity"? Because if you do (depending on the potency), we will require evidence that an observed effect can be observed from this. Your statement has not reached the level of "fraud", it is simply an unsupported assertion.
Pakistani homeopath: Ok, if we are non-sense and you are sensible then explain the complete pharmacological action of arsenic album when it was exposed to human body and a set of symptoms were produced?
Forum: The pharmacological action is available in books, read them. Just explain how does it work?
Now you ask us to explain an effect we do not believe has occurred; just as if I demanded you explain why, say, eating an apple will make your computer malfunction. It doesn't, so how can you explain why?
Pakistani homeopath: No, it does not exist, it was only observed through symptoms? There are so many web sites where medical scientists confessed that they have no exact clue about its physiological action but it exists. No body exactly knows the exact pharmacological effect of crude arsenic album in the body which has above ten thousand systems? Homeopathic medicines work exactly in the same manner as allopathic or other medicines work.
Ah. Now we're talking about crude arsenic? This is an argument from ignorance: we don't understand exactly how arsenic works in every bit of the body, therefore there could be an effect of homeopathic quantities of it in ways we don't understand.
But you're missing two points which have been made again and again: 1) Avogadro's limit tells us that you are usually not administering minute quantities of arsenic, but
no arsenic at all; and 2) we
can be comfortable with an unexplained effect,
if that effect has been observed. It hasn't.
Not to mention the fact that the physiological effect of arsenic is fairly well understood (see e.g.
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic42.htm).
It works in the same pattern as Allopathy or other medicines work. We take the exact same work from the homeopathic remedies which these medicines have in crude form. If in crude form arsenic will produce headache then it will definitely produce the headache in minute quantity (with or without repetition) form. This means if you give .1 mg arsenic album in crude form to a healthy person, it might produce few symptoms ( ref: Focus reply at http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=50&st=0)
How the symptoms were produced?
The same set of symptoms can be produced by administrating .250 mg and .10 mg and and .0001 mg (homeopathic minute quantity) the pharmacological effect is as same as it was when .250 mg or .100 mg or .10 mg was.)
If you mean that decreasing doses will give decreasing symptoms, yes, that's probably true, though you may not see an exactly straight line in the graph. And at a certain point of decreasing dose, or diultion, no symptoms at all will be observed.
Arsenic is just presented as set of an example. The other homeopathic medicines have the same physiological effect, as it is admissible in scientific medical system. For example if belladonna poising produced flushing of the face then the same belladonna in minute quantity is able to produce the same symptom with less intensity. (As it has been observed over human body)
Again, yes, the dose-response thing is accurate here - the less belladonna given, the less severe the symptoms, and when no belladonna is given, no symptoms will be observed.
Forum: This is all fraud, when potency of arsenic or belladonna or opium has no molecules then how it can bring the same physiological action in the body?
Pakistani homeopath: Potency means, minute quantity of arsenic, belladonna and opium etc that was observed by series of experimentation. Potency does not mean a product without having starting material. That is why all potencies do not work or it may not produce the desired results. If traces are there it will work and if traces of starting material is not there it will not work.
The working of the potency has been observed by performing series of experiments e.g When arsenic album or belladonna, or nux vomica or opium in 6c was given it produced the same set of symptoms irrespective of the fact of avogadro’s number rule’s stand point. When experiment was carried out with 12c or 18c or 30c, again more or less same set of symptoms were produced however their symptoms intensity was low but in few potencies it does not produced the same set of symptoms as it was observed during proving. That’s why the same potencies are not recommended in homeopathy or not valid for example you will never see homeopath recommending damiana in cm potency because the effect of damiana in cm has not been observed by maximum homeopaths. So through series of experimentation and results the effect of each homeopathic remedy’s potency has been finalized.
Okay, I
think what you're saying here is this (correct me if I'm wrong):
Although we may claim that Avogadro's limit dictates that beyond certain homeopathic potencies the chances of finding a single molecule of the mother tincture left in a preparation may be pretty much nil, the fact that effects are still observed rules this out.
So, you are saying that you agree that a preparation with no trace of the original substance left cannot have an effect; but that it can be experimentally shown that these preparations
do have an effect, and that therefore there
are still traces of the original substance left. Yes?
Because this goes against what we have understood homeopaths to claim: that the important thing is not the amount of mother tincture left, but the energetic trace of the substance imprinted on the carrier material. If you claim that the thing having an effect is simply small amounts of the mother tincture, why not just measure out very small quantities of it into doses?
And, furthermore, if there
is an observable effect of these homeopathic preparations, where is your evidence? Is this simply another unsupported assertion, or do you have studies which show this to be so?
We can all accept observed effects despite not understanding how they came to be, as long as they are reliably and validly observed. Are they? Because you have produced no evidence to this effect, and we have never seen any. So why should we think this is the case?
Forum: This is all fraud, you are liar, you are silly and stupid. We cannot accept. We reject your theory. You can’t prove it. This is all joke.
Pakistani homeopath: Thank you very much for the kind words you used for us. You have made up your minds that you will not accept anything because whenever you will accept, you have to pay one million dollar prize money. Hence there is no question of acceptance.
So far as I am aware, not one of us here arguing with you has any stake in the million dollars offered by James Randi. We will have to pay nothing; if you can show homeopathy to be true, we stand to have front row seats to one of the biggest scientific revolutions the world has known -
that is out vested interest, and it leans in your favour.
Forum: Ok, if you claim your medicine does work, then prove it. You may also win one million dollar prize money.
Pakistani homeopath: Thank you for the offer. We offer the same amount as “PRIZE MONEY†if you can prove, “homeopathy does not workâ€, you can also win the prize from our side too. This is open offer and valid for infinite period
Forum: Why we have to prove? It is your claim that it does work, that’s why you have to prove.
In this particular case, your representation of us is correct:
you are making the claim, and so
you have to show your evidence.
Moreover, the prize you claimed to offer is
not the same amount, has not been shown to exist, demands an unreasonable format (countersigned thesis, etc.), has unclear judging procedures, the submission date had passed before the nature of the prize was announced, and the thing we have to do to win the prize has never been properly stated (show homeopathy is paranormal? show it doesn't work? disprove it? what?).
Pakistani homeopath: We have already proved by curing so many patients. Most of them had allopathic background of treatment and were unpleased with the system. We cured them and we are satisfied with the efficacy of homeopathic medicines.
Forum: Homeopaths are so non sense and stupid, they do not know that all they got cured without medication. It was the counseling that played the rule. If you talk politely with your patients and encourage to fight against the disease the body itself covers up most of the diseases. If you are sure about your cured cases. Come to DBCT and prove it.
Pakistani homeopath: DBCT is not the criteria to prove the efficacy of any medicine.
What is wrong with the DBCT format for the testing of medicines? What specific problem to you have with the methodology? So far as I can see, it gives room for the medicine to do what it is claimed to do, without leaving room for misattribution. What have we missed?
If you've used homeopathy to cure people of diseases, then your treatments will perform well within a double-blind placebo controlled trial.
However, a set of controlled study trial was conducted in front of james Randi where ABC and BBC officials were involved and Randi refused to accept that test.
The test was accepted by all, and failed. The test was fair, agreed by all, and demonstrated no effect at all for the homeopathic preparation used. Were you under the impression that the test succeeded, and Randi simply dismissed it? Because if so, you've been misinformed.
Forum: No, No, we will not accept, this is all fraud.
Pakistani homeopath: Then what we can do. If you can prove this is fraud then again a million dollar prize is waiting for you.
Million
rupee prize. And please see my earlier comments regarding this.
Sheikh, I really appreciate your lengthy post, it's the first real effort I've seen in this long-winded discussion. But now it seems you're hinting at an explanation which will revolve on two claims:
1) There are small amounts of other tincture left in homeopathic preparations, regardless of potency;
2) We can see it work in practice.
You will need to back both of these claims up, using more than "I say so" arguments. Even so, your argument
1) contradicts homeopathic tradition which states that original substance is not the active ingredient
2) would not explain the homeopathic claim that more dilute=more potent
3) doesn't begin to explain any of the other homeopathic principles such as 'like cures like'
4) doesn't describe what happens on the molecular, chemical, or biochemical level
5) doesn't begin to do what you claimed to have come here for: explain how homeopathy works.
It's Friday night, and I may be drunk, but you are sober, and I'll be ugly in the morning...
Thanks Darat, this is the most accurate summary I've seen yet of the acres of pages of dialogue with Pakistani homeopaths.
